196 So. 2d 1 - Tolar v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 26 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Post-conviction motions for relief collaterally attacking judgments and sentences under Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 are basically in the nature of writs of error coram nobis. The federal counterpart to Criminal Procedure Rule No. 1 is § 2255 of Title 28 U.S.C.A., from which Rule 1 was modeled. Austin v. State, Fla.App. 1964, 160 So.2d 730 . As stated by the late Honorable John J. Parker concerning § 2255: `This motion is in the nature of an application for a writ of error coram nobis and is merely declaratory of existing law [cases cited].' 8 F.R.D. 171 , 175. The Reviser's Note to § 2255, supra, states: "`This section restates, clarifies and simplifies the procedure in the nature of the ancient writ of coram nobis. It provides an expeditious remedy for correcting erroneous sentences without resort to habeas corpus. * * *' "Annotation references: 96 L.Ed. 244 ; 20 A.L.R.2d 976 . * * *"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lee v. State · 208 So. 2d 506 - Nelson v. State

2. “"* * * A guilty plea, if induced by promises or threats which deprive it of the character of a voluntary act, is void. A conviction based upon such a plea is open to collateral attack. See Walker v. Johnston, 312 U.S. 275 , 61 S.Ct. 574 , 85 L.Ed. 830 ; Waley v. Johnston, 316 U.S. 101 , 62 S.Ct. 964 , 86 L.Ed. 1302 ; Shelton v. United States, 356 U.S. 26 , 78 S.Ct. 563 , 2 L.Ed.2d 579 , reversing, 5 Cir., 246 F.2d 571 . `A plea of guilty differs in purpose and effect from a mere admission or an extrajudicial confession; it is itself a conviction. Like a verdict of a jury it is conclusive. More is not required; the court has nothing to do but give judgment and sentence. Out of just consideration for persons accused of crime, courts are careful that a plea of guilty shall not be accepted unless made voluntarily after proper advice and with full understanding of the consequences.' Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 223 , 47 S.Ct. 582, 583 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 ."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lee v. State

3. “"Motions seeking relief from confinement under Rule 1 must specifically allege facts which, if true, would entitle defendant to a vacation of his sentence; conclusory allegations are insufficient. Simmons v. United States, D.C.W.D.Ark. 1964, 227 F. Supp. 778, 785 (mental incompetency). "As stated by 8 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d Ed., § 11.04 relating to post-conviction relief motions under § 2255, the `petition [motion] seeking relief must specifically allege facts which, if true, would entitle the defendant to vacate his sentence; conclusory allegations are insufficient', citing Simmons v. United States, supra."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lee v. State